French anti-piracy agency Hadopi only sued 14 people in 20 months

The anti-P2P authority sent out over 1.1 million warning letters, though.

In 2010, French authorities instated a group of bureaucrats whose purpose was to enforce copyright protection on the Internet in France. The group, called Hadopi, was in charge of enforcing the law of the same name, which would take requests from rights holders for take downs when someone with a French IP address tried to download a P2P file containing illegally procured media.

On Wednesday, the President of the Commission for Rights Protection (part of the Hadopi agency), Mireille Imbert-Quaretta, released some numbers reflecting the efficacy of France's crackdown on piracy, and talked to the press about what she considers a successful almost-two-years.

Of 3 million IP addresses "identified" by Hadopi, 1.15 million were found to be pirating content and sent a warning letter (the first phase). Of those 1.15 million, 102,854 were given a second warning, and of those, 340 received a third strike. If the third strike is ignored, Hadopi can take legal action, and as of July 1, only 14 offenders have had a case filed with a French court as a result of Hadopi, and none have yet been to trial.

Imbert-Quaretta said on Wednesday that the numbers reflect success on the part of the agency. French blog Numerama wrote that she considered the law not as a way of punishing the user at any price but as a way of "making users understand that copyright is a constitutionally guaranteed right" and Hadopi merely wants to "change the behavior of users."

The number of users that follow-up with Hadopi when they've been sent a warning letter also suggests that the system works—if the goal is only to educate users about copyright. Six percent of people who received an initial letter from Hadopi contacted the agency for more information or to discuss their case, but that number rises to 24 percent after the second contact is made, and increases to 75 percent for third-time offenders. If someone is convicted of illegal downloading of copyrighted materials they can face a fine of up to 300,000 Euros (about $378,000) and 3 years in prison.

Still, the numbers don't have everyone convinced. France's new president has said he'd like to replace Hadopi with "something else" and upon taking office President Hollande appointed a new French Minister of Culture, Aurélie Filippetti, who seemed to suggest that she'd push to shut the anti-piracy agency down. "In financial terms, [spending] €12 million euros ($14.86 million) and 60 agents—that’s expensive [just] to send a million e-mails," Filippetti said in August.

39 Reader Comments

Shortly after HADOPI's agency logo was presented to the public by Minister of Culture and Communication Frédéric Mitterrand, it was revealed that the logo used an unlicensed font. The font was created by typeface designer Jean François Porchez, and is owned by France Télécom. The design agency that drew the logo, Plan Créatif, admitted to using the font by mistake and the logo was redone with another font.[30]

"If someone is convicted of illegal downloading of copyrighted materials they can face a fine of up to 300,000 Euros (about $378,000) and 3 years in prison."

being appropriate? How is that reasonable? Big Content has way too much sway in government, it's painful

Just make a global content distribution system already a la Steam! People are willing to pay!

Was going to post the first part of your post almost verbatim. As for the content distribution system, won't happen for the foreseeable future, too many powerful vested interests fighting change. See your first point.

A point should be clarified: the mission of HADOPI is NOT to fight internet piracy. It is an administrative authority created by the law whose mission is to "promote" "encourage" legal downloading and "observe" legal and illicite downloading. The HADOPI may recommand law modifications, and the authority might be consulted or not by the Government (art 331-13).HADOPI's largest power is to produce a report/recommandations even when nobody asks the authority. But its consultation is never mandatory. This is all for the cheap price of $15 millons per year.

The authority in charge of fighting internet is called CPD - Commission de protection des droits, who is in the same building than HADOPI. But it is a different authority.

Even though fighting Internet piracy isn't HADOPI's main mission, I have the feeling that it's almost all they've done in almost 2 years of existence. Ask people what they know about HADOPI and this will be their answer. What else have they done in 20 months ?

HADOPI's PUR Label : 59 Internet platforms have been PUR labellized by HADOPI. And then what? What's the purpose of this label? People who use those websites already know it's legit. And there's not enough communication around this label to legitimate it.

HADOPI Labs : One initiative from HADOPI that I find useful. But misused and misguided... It's a pity to see what those forums have become. When we know they should've been used to listen to people and find solutions, we naturally ask this question : Has HADOPI taken any action from those Labs?

They had a 12M€ budget for 2012. Think about all that could have been done with that money, and what they've really done with it. 60% of it has been used to finance the "graduated response"... Too much for this, and definitely not enough for "promote and encourage" legal downloading... Michele Imbert Quaretta even didn't talk about those points during her press conference, and that's all I need to know...

"If someone is convicted of illegal downloading of copyrighted materials they can face a fine of up to 300,000 Euros (about $378,000) and 3 years in prison."

being appropriate? How is that reasonable?

In the French justice system, a maximum is just that: a maximum. Someone who has illegally downloading copyrighted materials could be prosecuted for counterfeiting (in theory), so the article gives the maximum penalty for counterfeiting. But this is misleading: if one of these cases ever comes before a judge, and manages to get a conviction (a big if), then the judge will have full latitude to decide the appropriate fine, which is more likely to be 100 Euros than 300,000.

A question is how effective is their monitoring system... how many people who got first warning kept pirating but weren't caught the second time or weren't issued second warning.

We see a 90% drop between first and second warning. is that the result of of inability to actually catch people (as in everyone kept pirating but they managed to catch only 10 percent) or there was actually drop in pirate levels.same issue is with third warning...

If their monitoring system is sufficient and they catch re-offenders at a high rate then this numbers show that the system is effective as people stop pirating...14 people being sued is not a sign of failure. Nobody being taken to court would be a sign of complete success of the system as long as they can catch 100% of offenders.

Of course lower piracy rates do not translate to higher revenues for copyright owners, especially since people pirate way more than they cold legally afford and do spend money on entertainment already and not being able to pirate will not release any extra funds on something they want. It might allow a transfer from one expense to another. Therefore, another part of french industry will suffer a loss.

I was ironical when I wrote that $15 millions per year was cheap for producing some "recommandations". By law they have no other power (art. 331-13), so people get paid by the government for doing work which is useless to society. In my opinion we should instead use that money to fund research and innovation and stimulate the economy. But that's just my opinion.

The CPD is the entity sending emails, not HADOPI. It is quite clear that the CPD and prosecutors hesitate to enforce the "default of securisation". Will a judge condemn someone for not securizing his internet connection without asking him anything? if he asks the person, and the person says he installed some software but that didn't work, will he be condemned when the security agencies, banks, etc., are themselves hacked every day? I think that there are many legal ways to defend yourself and that the CPD risks a lot if they inadvertently prove that people actually have little to fear.

A question is how effective is their monitoring system... how many people who got first warning kept pirating but weren't caught the second time or weren't issued second warning.

We see a 90% drop between first and second warning. is that the result of of inability to actually catch people (as in everyone kept pirating but they managed to catch only 10 percent) or there was actually drop in pirate levels.same issue is with third warning...

As far as I know, the system is only effective for P2P downloaders. Basically it means that people who were used to BitTorrent, and eDonkey/GnuTella/etc... are more likely to turn to direct download and UseNet networks. HADOPI cannot monitor those pipes, and therefor cannot tell if the people first warned really stopped pirating. This technical limit was pointed out before HADOPI's creation, but is still ignored by the people who run it. And still they congratulate themselves for their success, following those vanity metrics...

@Herve661 : we both agree on the fact that HADOPI is useless, and I know you were speaking ironically about those $15M they have every year for run. I just expressed the "feeling" I have about HADOPI when you said that fighting internet piracy isn't their first motto .

As far as I know, the system is only effective for P2P downloaders. Basically it means that people who were used to BitTorrent, and eDonkey/GnuTella/etc... are more likely to turn to direct download and UseNet networks. HADOPI cannot monitor those pipes, and therefor cannot tell if the people first warned really stopped pirating. This technical limit was pointed out before HADOPI's creation, but is still ignored by the people who run it. And still they congratulate themselves for their success, following those vanity metrics.

which is a success then?if people are forced to use usenet then they will pirate less as usenet is way too complicated for most people.DD site of course are easy to use but MU case clearly shows that gov. are going after them too.

Therefore it is a success if their monitoring system of re-offenders is effective.

I don't think the numbers here tell us anything at all, except there's a whole lot of Piracy going on. They could be showing enforcement working through reduced 2/3/4th notices, or they could be showing a department snowed under with work such that it can't continue to send out these notices.

As far as I know, the system is only effective for P2P downloaders. Basically it means that people who were used to BitTorrent, and eDonkey/GnuTella/etc... are more likely to turn to direct download and UseNet networks. HADOPI cannot monitor those pipes, and therefor cannot tell if the people first warned really stopped pirating. This technical limit was pointed out before HADOPI's creation, but is still ignored by the people who run it. And still they congratulate themselves for their success, following those vanity metrics.

which is a success then?if people are forced to use usenet then they will pirate less as usenet is way too complicated for most people.DD site of course are easy to use but MU case clearly shows that gov. are going after them too.

Therefore it is a success if their monitoring system of re-offenders is effective.

Anyhow, it's funny that as claims of piracy decreasing by 50% come to light, legit sales revenue also continued to decline. Seems to me that's actually worse than previous efforts since the piracy boogeyman can no longer be used according to Hadopi.

Quote:

While we’re not going to dispute the validity of the provided statistics, it is worth pointing out that there’s something missing from the report. Something big.

For more than a decade the entertainment industry has claimed that digital piracy is the main cause for the gradual decline in revenues. So if piracy is down massively in France, one would expect that the revenues are soaring, right? But they’re not.

If we look at the French music industry we see that overall revenues were down by 3.9 percent in 2011.

Likewise, the French movie industry is still going through a rough period with revenues dropping 2.7 percent in 2011. Ironically, an industry insider even blamed online piracy for this drop.

To sum it up. in 2011 online piracy was slashed in half according to the Hadopi report, but despite this unprecedented decline the movie and music industries managed to generate less revenue than in 2010. If we follow the logic employed by the anti-piracy lobby during the past decade, this means that piracy is actually boosting sales.

The cheapest rate for sending out a local letter in France is 0.78 EUR (about 1 USD) which would mean that the Hadopi spent about one million Euros on postage alone so far. They likely used one of the more expensive delivery options where they can be surer about whether the letter gets through to the intended recipient or not. This would increase postage cost by a few hundred percent. They might be getting a volume discount but then you also have to account for all the other costs - everything from just the paper, printing and envelope costs of those 1.25 million letters and all the way to the top. I'm guessing we're looking at several tens of millions of euros. Is that really the best way to spend so much money?

Anyhow, it's funny that as claims of piracy decreasing by 50% come to light, legit sales revenue also continued to decline. Seems to me that's actually worse than previous efforts since the piracy boogeyman can no longer be used according to Hadopi.

are you expecting a little jenny to actually use that? and simple google search resulted in first guide to usenet telling me that i have to pay for it.computer savy people can use anything to pirate.computer savy people are minority.

are you really expecting average user to able to learn how to use something more complicated than torrent?

and of course sales revenue will decline. piracy does not affect the performance of the industry in any meaningful way. it only shifts were money go.

are you expecting a little jenny to actually use that? and simple google search resulted in first guide to usenet telling me that i have to pay for it.computer savy people can use anything to pirate.computer savy people are minority.

are you really expecting average user to able to learn how to use something more complicated than torrent?

When it comes to avoid law enforcement, people adapt. It's human nature. Especially when it is about access to culture. There are many french websites that offer help for getting used to Usenet, and their number is increasing. I'm french myself and I can assure you that the few people I know who got mail/letter from Hadopi turned to UseNet. Or secure P2P trackers, the ones who need to register... And if not, remember that the better way to share files is still external HDD sharing...

Hadopi is useless because of the many other ways of sharing files. But people are willing to pay for an access to culture. And because the price of blu-rays, CDs, etc... are still high, they pay the wrong people, the lower-priced ones, like UseNet networks.

This is why global license seems unavoidable in long term. But major companies don't see it that way, and their lobbies lead to failures like Hadopi...

This is a three-strike system -- actually four strikes -- and it was instituted in 2010. Why would we expect that large numbers of people would have already gone through all four strikes?

This result seems quite in line with what I would expect. If it's not what you expected, what assumptions are you making about piracy? That people who pirate would not change their behavior in response to warnings? That it is some kind of addiction? I think most people pirate because it is cheap and easy. Once you've gotten three warnings I think you probably stop believing you are safe doing it....

The real question, not addressed here, is whether levels of piracy have changed in France. That is how their success should be judged. Not by the number of court cases. I would not be surprised that a personal notification, sent directly to an individual, actually has a significant impact.

I rather suspect that if I simply sent out warning emails to 1.1 million random individuals, I could achieve similar reductions in "piracy" and at far less expense. OTOH, there's little evidence that's not what happened.

Did it say anywhere what was resulting reduction in piracy - by any chosen measure?

The 1-2-3 strike numbers are all well and good (and do look good, I must admit), but wouldn't the eral measure be how many 1st strike e-mails are going to be sent after this first batch has been processed, i.e., in the next accounting period (however that is defined)?

As for the costs, these do look ridiculous, especially since I imagine at least first 2 strikes processing can be automated pretty much 100% (including the snail mail bit).

Wow, looks like the "policing the internet by suing" worked out about as well for them as it did for the RIAA. Lots of cost, little followthrough, questionable results.

Read the rest of the article. The goal wasn't to seek-n-destroy, but rather warn-and-let-go ... 3 times ... before pursuing prosecution. Since so many emails only turned into 14 lawsuits, I sort of agree with the sentiment that this worked.

As a government, you ideally don't want to destroy a tax-paying citizen's life over something this trivial. Human nature dictates that most folks will stop doing something wrong if you just let them know it's wrong. They played on that, and it worked.

The only thing I see wrong here is how the gov't is footing the bill for it. If big content wants things policed, they need to pony up some money for the effort. But, then you get the problems we have in the US where big content wields the FBI and DHS as their private attack dogs... and they DO want to ruin citizens' lives.

So what I take from this is that if they sent out $30 fines for first infringement (which could be paid or contested, just like parking, littering, or speeding fines), then the program would be completely self-funding, it would have a stronger deterrent than just a strongly worded letter, and the punishment would be proportional to the crime, unlike the $400,000 threatened for repeat offenders (or the absolutely insane judgements that have occurred here in the US).

Oooohhhh, warning letters. Oh no, please say it isn't so! What a joke. My guess is that there are way way to many people torrenting. Going after all of them is a logistical nightmare for any law enforcement agency in any country. It is just never going to happen. That is a huge pipe dream. I even think the 1-2-3 Strikes plan is a joke. Sure it will catch the dumb and unlucky, but it will never catch the majority of so-called offenders.

Again, I liken the torrenting scene as to the War on Drugs in America. It is a futile fight that will only result in a on-going struggle that will ultimately end in abject failure. That does even take into account the wasted tax payer money on a campaign that will never end. All this really does is fund law enforcement agencies to create jobs at the expense of the tax payers.

So what I take from this is that if they sent out $30 fines for first infringement (which could be paid or contested, just like parking, littering, or speeding fines), then the program would be completely self-funding, it would have a stronger deterrent than just a strongly worded letter, and the punishment would be proportional to the crime, unlike the $400,000 threatened for repeat offenders (or the absolutely insane judgements that have occurred here in the US).

You better stop now before the men in white show up and haul you off to the funny farm for making way too much sense.

They were not "found" to be committing piracy. They are simply accused of it.

It is this breaking of the truth that all western governments seem to embark on. Lies, they were previously called. Today, they bear the newspeak of "untruths".

There are many misconceptions in the article. Technically Hadopi doesn't accuse people of committing piracy but accuses them of not securing their networks (yeah I know...). The people who are caught 3 times could get a class 1 fine (1500e to 3000e) and internet disconnection for a year. 300 000e fines are another story and as far as I know have never been given out in France and won't be anytime soon imho.

"If someone is convicted of illegal downloading of copyrighted materials they can face a fine of up to 300,000 Euros (about $378,000) and 3 years in prison."

being appropriate? How is that reasonable?

In the French justice system, a maximum is just that: a maximum. Someone who has illegally downloading copyrighted materials could be prosecuted for counterfeiting (in theory), so the article gives the maximum penalty for counterfeiting. But this is misleading: if one of these cases ever comes before a judge, and manages to get a conviction (a big if), then the judge will have full latitude to decide the appropriate fine, which is more likely to be 100 Euros than 300,000.

I do understand the concept of a maximum, but please explain to me why you think it is reasonable or appropriate for a judge to even be able to fine someone up to 300,000 Euros and/or send them to jail for 3 years for making a copy of one of more files?

Imho, the possible punishment does not fit the crime at all. Whether it's a crime or not is another question, I personally believe it's only fair to compensate someone for their work and I'm happy to do so especially if it's great, but Big Content really has itself to blame re distribution. It can be done, they're just too comfy and lazy in their old business models.

I'd even argue that their current anti-piracy strategy is inciting more piracy by raising its profile, point in case the Pirate Bay. If they would shut up about it, there would probably be less piracy.

"making users understand that copyright is a constitutionally guaranteed right"

WOW, just wow, lol. Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT? Really? How about I buy a movie, and then invite each one of my neighbors, 1 at a time to view said movie in my home with me, until everyone within 12 city blocks had had a chance to watch it? How's that for "guaranteed"? What if myself and 100 friends all chip in and bought 1 video game each, and then loaned them to each other in sequence, 1 after the other until all of us had played all 100 games for the price of 1? Copyright is only guaranteed IF a government chooses to give such a BS right to the corporations who own IP. If customers dont think your product is worth what you charge, you have no RIGHT to be paid what you are asking. People will find ways to get your product cheaper, they will find ways to share, and you wont make a dime. IF, and a very big IF, your product is worthwhile AND you are charging a fair price, then the consumers will have no problem buying your product. The true purpose for IP and copyright law is to ensure you are the only one who can legally make money from said IP, EVERYTHING else is fair use. If the governments want to start enforcing draconian laws, we will find creative ways around them. DRM on e-books, we'll just trade e-readers and share that way, legally too I might add. If I want to "share" my latest movie purchases, I can just trade and/or loan my SD cards. No law broken, nothing the AA's can do about it, and the owners of the IP dont get paid the ridiculous amounts they are asking for in some cases. But like I said, IF the IP is worthwhile, people will pay for it and hopefully content creators(authors, musicians, etc) will start moving away from these draconian IP lawyers that they currently employ.

"If someone is convicted of illegal downloading of copyrighted materials they can face a fine of up to 300,000 Euros (about $378,000) and 3 years in prison."

being appropriate? How is that reasonable?

In the French justice system, a maximum is just that: a maximum. Someone who has illegally downloading copyrighted materials could be prosecuted for counterfeiting (in theory), so the article gives the maximum penalty for counterfeiting. But this is misleading: if one of these cases ever comes before a judge, and manages to get a conviction (a big if), then the judge will have full latitude to decide the appropriate fine, which is more likely to be 100 Euros than 300,000.

I do understand the concept of a maximum, but please explain to me why you think it is reasonable or appropriate for a judge to even be able to fine someone up to 300,000 Euros and/or send them to jail for 3 years for making a copy of one of more files?

Imho, the possible punishment does not fit the crime at all. Whether it's a crime or not is another question, I personally believe it's only fair to compensate someone for their work and I'm happy to do so especially if it's great, but Big Content really has itself to blame re distribution. It can be done, they're just too comfy and lazy in their old business models.

I'd even argue that their current anti-piracy strategy is inciting more piracy by raising its profile, point in case the Pirate Bay. If they would shut up about it, there would probably be less piracy.

Actually, I didnt know TPB existed until I read about them in the news. Before that I was using other methods to download things.

I do understand the concept of a maximum, but please explain to me why you think it is reasonable or appropriate for a judge to even be able to fine someone up to 300,000 Euros and/or send them to jail for 3 years for making a copy of one of more files?

The problem is that this is the penalty for counterfeiting, and copying illegally a file has been wrapped together with counterfeiting in the law. It makes some sense from a legal point of view: copying a file is not stealing (which is defined as depriving the orginal owner of the stolen object), it is only infringing the copyright. Obviously, against actual counterfeiters of physical goods, the fines can be heavy, since it is potentially a very lucrative activity. The part where it became crazy is when the lawmakers did not want to create a specific offense for downloading illegally. They tried the patch of accusing people of 'failure to secure a network' instead, but it should be extremely difficult to actually get a condemnation for that, because it would essentially require for the accusation to prove that the accused actively avoided to secure their network. This being penal matter, the burden of proof lies entirely on the accusation, and doubt benefits the accused. So now the Hadopi authority falls back again on accusations of counterfeiting...